WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

SAP SE v. Mohammed Aziz Sheikh, Sapteq Global Consulting Services

Case No. D2015-0565

1. The Parties

The Complainant is SAP SE of Walldorf, Germany, represented by RNA IP Attorneys, India.

The Respondent is Mohammed Aziz Sheikh, Sapteq Global Consulting Services of Bangalore, Karnataka, India.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <sapteq.com> is registered with Melbourne IT Ltd (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on March 31, 2015. On March 31, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 1, 2015, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy" or "UDRP"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Supplemental Rules").

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on April 7, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 27, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on April 28, 2015.

The Center appointed Jonas Gulliksson as the sole panelist in this matter on May 5, 2015. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a German company, founded in 1972. The Complainant develops application software and business solutions. The Complainant owns trademark registrations, word marks as well as figurative marks, in the mark SAP in numerous countries, such as among others the Indian Trademark Registration No. 1238969 (device) for services in classes 41 and 42 with filing date September 22, 2003 and registration date January 29, 2008; Indian Trademark Registration No. 576754 (device) for goods in class 9 with filing date and registration date July 9, 1992; the United States of America Trademark Registration No. 73779534 (word) for goods and services in classes 9, 41 and 42 with filing date February 6, 1989 and registration date February 19, 2002; Community Trade Mark Registration (word) No. 001270693 for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 18, 25, 28, 41 and 42 with filing date August 9, 1999 and registration date July 9, 2002.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on October 19, 2010.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant has mainly stated the following.

The Complainant is headquartered in Walldorf, Germany, with locations in more than 130 countries and is the world leader in enterprise software and software related services and an employer of more than 66,500 people. The trademark SAP has attained status of a well-known mark across the globe and the brand SAP ranked 25th in the rating agency Interbrand's list of "Best Global Brands" 2013.

The Complainant is the holder of trademark registrations for SAP which predate the registration of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's trademark SAP in its entirety and is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks. The addition of the suffix "teq" does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant's SAP trademarks. The suffix "teq" is descriptive of the Complainant's business within technology and software and the addition of a descriptive term to a trademark is not a distinguishing feature.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2010, i.e. long after the Complainant's registration of the trademark SAP. Moreover the trademark SAP had attained status of well-known mark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. It is therefore evident that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant's prior rights at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has no right to use the Complainant's trademark as a domain name and the Complainant has not authorized any such use. The Respondent neither uses the disputed domain name to provide a bone fide offering of goods or services nor in a manner that constitute a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Respondent therefore has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Because of the more than 75 trademark registrations concerning SAP which the Complainant is the proprietor of and given the prominence and well known stature of the Complainant's SAP products / services and prior domain name registrations of SAP, the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant's SAP trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. The Respondent's choice of the disputed domain name is allegedly based on their business of offering trainings for use of SAP proprietary software without the Complainant's authorization. The Respondent has intentionally for commercial gain attempted to attract Internet users to the website by intentionally misleading them and creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website.

The Complainant has, inter alia, submitted screenshots of the Respondent's website attached as Exhibit 8 to the Complaint.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

The Complainant has the burden of proving each of the following three elements under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to be entitled to a transfer of the disputed domain name:

(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant is the holder of numerous trademark registrations for SAP worldwide, inter alia, the Indian Trademark Registrations No. 1238969 and 576754, the Community Trade Mark Registration No. 001270693 and the US trademark registration No. 73779534. The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has rights to the trademark SAP.

The Panel notes that the disputed domain name consists of the letters "sap" with the addition of the term "teq" and the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com". First, the Panel notes that the mere addition of the gTLD ".com" is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a mark as it is a technical requirement of registration. Second, the Panel finds that the addition of the suffix "teq" does not suffice to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant's trademark SAP since "sap" is the dominant part of the disputed domain name and since "teq" associates to technology and software which is the Complainant's field of business and the goods and services included under the Complainant's trademark registrations are software and technology related (see, inter alia, the Indian trademarks mentioned above).

The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4 (a)(i) of the Policy is fulfilled.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

In cases when a respondent fails to present a response, the complainant is still required to make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0"), paragraph 2.1., and The Vanguard Group,Inc. v. Lorna Kang, WIPO Case No. D2002-1064 and BerlitzInvestment Corp. v. Stefan Tinculescu, WIPO Case No. D2003-0465. Further, paragraph 14(b) of the Rules provides that, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, a panel shall draw such inferences as it considers appropriate from a failure of a party to comply with a provision or requirement of the Rules.

The Panel finds that a large part of the Complainant's numerous trademark registrations (and all of the Indian registrations) were made prior to the registration of the disputed domain name and notes that the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no right to use the Complainant's trademark as a domain name and that the Complainant has not authorized any such use. Moreover, the Panel notes that there is no disclosure whatsoever on the website at the disputed domain name of a relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent. The Panel consequently finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant's allegations as there is no evidence suggesting that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is fulfilled.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant's trademark registrations at the time of registration of the disputed domain name and the Respondent has intentionally for commercial gain attempted to attract Internet users to the website by intentionally misleading them and creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website. As evidence for the use in bad faith, the Complainant has presented screenshots of the Respondent's website.

Against the background of the Complainant's trademark registrations and position on the market, considered together with the Respondent's choice to combine the letters "sap" with the descriptive term "teq", the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith by the Respondent. The Panel further finds that the Respondent has referred to the Complainant's trademark while offering training services related to SAP products on the website accessible through the disputed domain name. The Respondent has therefore intentionally for commercial gain attempted to attract Internet users to its website by intentionally misleading them and creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website.

The Panel consequently finds that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <sapteq.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Jonas Gulliksson
Sole Panelist
Date: May 19, 2015